Accordingly, the author held that zakah is not to be given to the Banu al-Muttalib—not because they are among the Prophet’s household, but because they share with the Prophet’s household in the khums and are therefore spared the need for zakah by what they receive from the khums. This reasoning indicates that if there is no khums, they are certainly entitled to zakah. There is no difficulty in this, unlike the case of the Banu Hashim.

Thus, with regard to being barred from zakah, the ruling of the Banu al-Muttalib is the same as that of the Banu Hashim; and with regard to entitlement to the khums, they are likewise treated as the Banu Hashim.

Their paternal cousins, the Banu Nawfal and the Banu Abd Shams, stood with Quraysh against the Banu Hashim. Hence Abu Talib invoked against them in his well-known poem rhyming in lām:

May Allah requite Abd Shams and Nawfal on our behalf
With an evil punishment—swift, not delayed.

Accordingly, they have no share in the khums, but they may receive zakah.

What the author has followed here is one narration from Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him. The sounder view—the other narration, and the established position of the school—is that zakah may validly be given to the Banu al-Muttalib, because they are not among the family of Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, and because of the general purport of the evidence: “Zakah expenditures are only for the poor...” [al-Tawbah: 60]. The Banu al-Muttalib are included in this.

Their sharing in the khums is answered by saying that it was based on their support and assistance. When they supported and aided the Banu Hashim, they were granted a share of the khums in recognition of their merit. Zakah, however, is a different matter.

And their freed slaves...

His statement, “and their freed slaves,” means those whom they emancipated—that is, the slaves emancipated by the Banu Hashim or by the Banu al-Muttalib. Zakah is not to be given to them, because of the statement